Paradox for Conservatives

The word used was "jurisdiction".
It's not who you are. It's where you are, in tandem with exercise of sovereignty.

Uhh, yeah and???? Immigrants are here in the US. They are persons within our jurisdiction which is exactly the class protected by the 14th, to which I am referring.
 
You said they can only only apply to "the people" which you seem to define as citizens. Obviously, they can and do apply non citizens.

Duh, is right, Trumpster, i.e. idiot.

If a stranger comes into my house uninvited he will face consequences. See how that works?
 
That's because you recognize the problem with "God-given" or endowed by some "Creator". The paradox is for those who blindly accept the Creator thing.

The same is true even if you don't recognize a creator but think all humans have some innate human rights--natural rights they were born with into a state of nature (Hobbes?). But I think those rights are irrelevant if they don't live in a society that protects them.
 
Due process rights are in deference to natural rights. Jefferson's wording in the DofI imitates Locke's and the 14th borrows those words in ensuring due process rights.

Many nations have these same rights.

There is certainly irony in any argument that states that certain rights are universal (it is not necessary that one contends they come from God) regardless of the law, but that they only exist for citizens. That contention is patently absurd.

Due process rights might be in deference to natural rights, but what constitutes due process rights is determined by the law and court decisions which vary over time. So, there are no universal innate due process rights in practice.
 
Therefore illegals don't have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Which rights don't they have? Can you show me any examples of 1st-8th constitutional rights being restricted for any group?

I know foreign diplomats have some limits on travel, but they are an exception.
 
Hello Flash,

Due process rights might be in deference to natural rights, but what constitutes due process rights is determined by the law and court decisions which vary over time. So, there are no universal innate due process rights in practice.

This amounts to arguing that since a method has been found to do something immoral under the law that it is thus moral.
 
Due process rights might be in deference to natural rights, but what constitutes due process rights is determined by the law and court decisions which vary over time. So, there are no universal innate due process rights in practice.

Practice has nothing to do with universal innate rights or natural rights. It's a normative statement not a positive one.

Our rights to due process exist in practice mostly because we agree with the normative statement and have stayed fairly true to it.
 
The word used was "jurisdiction".
It's not who you are. It's where you are, in tandem with exercise of sovereignty.


By voting for Trump, whatever upside they believe comes with that, nobody can take any argument made
from them rooted in good morality. They have ceded any claim whatsoever to being of high morals. Morals take
secong third fourth? chair to a host of other things that are immoral, such as the value of white heritage, the value
of keep a lid on taxes for the wealthy, the value of supporting cops over the oppressed and beaten, the value inherent
to degrading the down and out by constantly calling them lazy, stupid and leaches on the commonweal. The value of
being able to hide their indiscretions and frauds. The value in posing as strong to our allies and supplicating to tyrants.
The value in retrenchment as the rest of the globe rises and saw us as a leader. The value in degrading empiricism and reason itself
because it is inimical to their fealty to filthy lucre. There are a host of values above basic decency,
honesty in fact, statesmanship that they have elevated.
 
Conservatives claim these rights to be God given, are we to believe God gives Americans rights he does not give non-Americans?
Rights are God given, but laws are also God given. Are we to believe that God wants us to cower before breakers of laws? The answer is "NO", and thank God for that. ;)
 
Which rights don't they have? Can you show me any examples of 1st-8th constitutional rights being restricted for any group?

I know foreign diplomats have some limits on travel, but they are an exception.

If you're not a citizen or legal guest of this country then you don't have Constitutional rights. It's really that simple...
 
Hello Flash,

Due process rights might be in deference to natural rights, but what constitutes due process rights is determined by the law and court decisions which vary over time. So, there are no universal innate due process rights in practice.

There are courts of law to enforce the written law.

And then there is the court of public opinion.

Trump is a barrister of the court of public opinion.

He will surely implicate anyone who, by doing so, would advance his case.
 
Hello Flash,

Doesn't God want families to have a right not to be ripped apart?

Children need their parents.

You've got to get things pretty misconstrued to think it is Godly to rip children away from their parents?

What did the children do wrong?

We don't know what God wants and if we did it should not determine governmental policy.

Nobody wants children ripped away from their parents and I think something could be arranged differently. However, once the decision was made to prosecute those crossing the border illegally they are sent to federal jail where I don't think we want their children sent. Those people are being processed in mass (1,000 a day in a single court) and pleading guilty in return for time served.

Previously, they were not charged and released and never appeared for their court date adding to the total of illegals. Also, according to administration officials, they are trying to get people to turn themselves in at ports of entry and avoid the illegal crossings.
 
Hello Flash,

This amounts to arguing that since a method has been found to do something immoral under the law that it is thus moral.

No, it means it meets the laws of due process. Being legal and moral are two different things and morality differs among individuals. Is it moral to separate a child from parents who care going to prison? Conservatives think abortion is immoral but it is legal and liberals think the death penalty is immoral but it is also legal.
 
Last edited:
If you're not a citizen or legal guest of this country then you don't have Constitutional rights. It's really that simple...

Does that mean you have no examples of any constitutional rights ever been limited for non-citizens? Our Constitution prohibits government from restricting those rights, it applies to government--not individuals (citizen or otherwise).

Some distinctions are made between non-immigrant aliens and legal residents in areas such as gun purchases, but these fall under regulations allowed by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Back
Top